The financial and cultural centrality of sport, and football in particular, has seen sports coaching receive significant and ongoing attention across the world. The Premier League's institutional aim is to stage the most competitive and compelling football league in the world, showcasing the most skilful football players from across the globe. Aligned to this intention, the Premier League is committed to generating domestic potential. In their most recent EPPP 10-year report (1) it was reported that 77% of professional contracts across the Premier League and EFL are held by Home Grown Players. Additionally, since 2012/13, 47% players who have featured in the Premier League have been Home Grown and the percentage of minutes from home grown players has grown from 46.05%–50.15% in the 2020/21 season. Therefore, a core component of the Premier League virtuous circle business model is the strategic and responsible reinvestment of broadcast and commercial revenue to support the clubs, with the aim of continuing to produce more and better home-grown players. Furthermore, the Premier League have deployed a variety of strategies towards this overall aim such as the Elite Player Performance Plan (EPPP), first introduced for football academies in 2012. The EPPP is a long-term plan that promotes the development of a world-leading Academy system, designed to best prepare world class youth players for playing in the Premier League (2). A core strand of the EPPP is the parallel development of coaches in the academy system, with the strategic aim of developing the most skilful coaches in the world (3). To advance this agenda, it is crucial to define highly skilful coaching, to understand the development of expertise, and to explore why some are recognised as experts by their peers.

What characterises expertise in coaching has been an area of interest in the sport coaching literature since the 1990's (4–6). Early investigations into skilful coaching practice looked to record and quantify patterns of coaching behaviour, which have since been employed to explore “top level professional” football coaches in academy settings (7–10). These authors have often employed systematic observation methods to investigate the self-awareness of coaches by investigating the alignment between what coaches say they intend to do vs. their behaviours in practice (7). Whilst this self-awareness is useful for coaches, if we are to truly explore coaching skill and expertise, there is an opportunity to move beyond systematic behavioural observation that captures what coaches do (11). To achieve this, research should aim to capture, make sense of, and appreciate the day to day challenges of skilful academy football coaches, alongside the contextual skills, attributes, knowledge and experiences required to solve them. Unfortunately, this type of research has not yet been conducted within football, nor the wider coaching literature.

In contrast, the broader field of expertise literature shows a rich tradition of appreciative inquiry into the skill of practitioners with high levels of expertise and comparison with novices (12–17). The notion of appreciative inquiry employs methods which emphasise the skill and expertise of individuals, rather than focusing on what needs fixing within a domain (18). In this sense, Hoffman (19) appreciates an individual with expertise to be is someone who is;

This definition captures the necessity for individuals to frequently adapt skilfully to the unique demands of their domain (which we will explore more later in this paper). Parallels can be drawn to Herbert Simon's metaphor of the scissors, where human behaviour is shaped by the twin blades of task environments and the capacities of the individual actor to solve them (20). In following this metaphor, empirical research in sport coaching seems to only scratch the surface of the twin blades of skilful coaching. Therefore, in this article we aim to progress the notions of skill and expertise in sport coaching using both literature from within the research field of sport coaching and externally. Specifically, we will consider three main questions; 1.

Do we understand what the coaches with the highest level of expertise can do?

The field is rich with conceptual frameworks of expertise, particularly highlighted by the seminal works of Nash et al. (21) and Lyle & Cushion (22), which provide a foundational basis for our exploration into coaching expertise. Both papers employ a narrative review of prior literature, within and external to sport coaching. Flowing from their review of literature was a deeper parameterisation of coaching expertise (see Table 1). A pivotal theme in both papers is the conditional application of knowledge to solve daily challenges, which we will explore later as a central feature (23). Both papers draw on the challenge of identifying individuals who meet the threshold of expertise or skill based on hierarchical status, years' of experience, the quality of athlete they worked with, or the success of their athletes. Instead, Nash and colleagues (21) extend this idea to consider three indicators of expertise, experience, knowledge, and reputation.

There is a clear, whilst conceptual argument which is consistent across the coaching expertise literature (24–27). Universally, authors are suggesting that coaching expertise is characterised by the capacity for adaptation to context (23). In the broader literature, this capacity for change is made in the distinction between routine expertise and adaptive expertise, first made by Hatano and Inigaki (28). At the heart of both adaptive and routine expertise is that coaches can perform standard tasks and functions without error. Routine expertise captures the coach's competence in tasks with the ability to present work with low variability in the deliverables of performance. For example, the coach with routine expertise would be capable of delivering similar sessions to similar groups of athletes based on similar scheduling of activities, progressions, interactions, and time scales. They would in essence be highly effective in predictable circumstances. Conversely, the adaptive expert can produce the routine, but is also efficient and innovative in applying knowledge when approaching everyday challenges common to their job role (28, 29). Thus the adaptive expert would not only be able to generate appropriate plans for different individuals and groups, but would also be able to deviate from what was planned based on changing circumstance, with the plan acting as a useful guide.

Evidence from other domains would suggest that the skilful capacity to utilise flexible, creative, and innovative use of the competencies found in routine expertise, is what enables adaptability in practice. For instance, within the context of outdoor education, instructors with expertise have demonstrated heightened situational awareness and the capacity to recognise the demands of their environment through cues (30). The capacity to notice key information results in loops of perception, comprehension, and projection, which supports experts to filter salient information to make optimal decisions which diverge away from original plans of action (31, 32). Thus, following the guidance of others, adaptability is the essential ingredient for expertise to be realised (33, 34).

Interestingly, research has suggested that expertise is often aligned to individuals who have a wider knowledge base. In the context of coaching this refers to the amalgamation of knowledge of the person they are coaching, the sport, their pedagogy, and the curriculum they create (35, 36; see Figure 1). However, Gary Klein (37) has suggested this is a misinterpretation of the relationship those with expertise have with knowledge, which is nicely summarised by Ward et al. (38) below;

For example, a skilful football coach might notice that individual players have not yet developed the technical competence and skill to successfully execute a desired tactical solution within their agreed way of playing. The skilful coach may then apply knowledge of the person and pedagogy to effectively support these individuals based on the contextual and critical application of this knowledge, where other coaches may have resorted to solutions based on sharing more knowledge from a single area.

This is not to say that skilful adaptive coaches simply ‘turn up and adapt' quite the contrary! Instead, as someone engages in deliberate thinking regarding their projected decision making, the more they enhance their capacity for intuitive thinking in the moment (36). Deliberate thinking supports someone to increase the number of options available to them coupled with a greater depth of critical thought regarding which option, where, when and why, particularly when addressing problems “in the moment” through intuitive thinking. This is nicely captured by the pithy phrase “what you know determines what you see” (39). The role of knowledge therefore (e.g., the when's, when nots, how's and why's) can be captured by the metaphor of a snake shedding their skin. In essence, the use of knowledge is just as much about unlearning as learning to tackle dynamic anomalies (40, 41). This efficient combination and application of knowledge to specific environments over time characterise the expression of expertise. In sport, this requires coaches to combine a range of bodies of knowledge (see Figure 1) that are most applicable to typical and atypical challenges (35, 42, 43). Similarities can be drawn to work on conceptions of knowledge, where individuals move from dualistic, through to increasingly relativistic views based on increasing volumes of valid experience (44, 45).

Of note, more recent work has suggested that the separation of routine and adaptive expertise is unnecessary, as adaptive skill is essentially the central feature of expertise, rendering the distinction redundant (33). Instead, Ward and colleagues defined adaptive skill as;

This intriguing definition illustrates that we cannot separate the skill and expertise of a person from coaching episodes within their context. In this sense, evidence from the domain specific expertise literature strongly implies that skill and expertise is contextual to a person's role, responsibilities, and wider system in which they work (46). Furthermore, interpretation of this body of literature suggests that skill and expertise is characterised by several key cognitive, affective, action and social capacities which are presented, and defined in Figure 2 (46). Thus, these capacities demonstrate how complex it is to (i) identify the most skilful coaches and (ii) go about investigating and exploring these altered and updated episodes.

Unfortunately, there is a historical trend in research across various fields of failing to justifiably identify individuals with expertise, including misrepresentation of the skilful due to a lack of appreciation of experience, skills and attributes, or peer validation (46). For practical and methodological reasons, much research in coaching has focussed on partial conceptions of a coach's role and responsibility with a sole focus on practice design, skill acquisition, or coaching behaviours on the pitch/court/track. Evidence suggests that a coach's role extends far beyond these situations, to classroom settings, conversations in corridors, pre or post sessions, all of which are largely ignored throughout the literature (55). Furthermore, as a field we have tended to over rely on cross-sectional, retrospective, and observational methods in isolation. This often constitutes a snapshot of coaching practice at a moment in time, without appreciation of context or socio-political considerations.

In contrast, other fields typically follow conceptions of expertise with empirical investigations to test and/or explore them. Thus, there is always a desire to build an evidence base which informs individuals to understand how these parameters might look, sound and feel, like in the challenges of day-to-day work. Unfortunately, this leaves us with limited evidence to inform skilful coaching. This is not, however, to say that the expertise literature from alternative domains cannot inform sport coaching. Recently Nash and colleagues (26) have stressed the importance of exploring research findings from other domains, and consider how data may, or may not, transfer into a different field. This presents an alternative approach away from the norms of research in sport coaching. Therefore, to further essential research questions in sport coaching, we now consider how this literature might act as a starting point.

Outside of sport coaching, expertise research has adopted a highly pragmatic focus, with the intent of informing practice (60, 61). The common feature of this pragmatic approach is identifying common and critical challenges of work first, then working backwards to the perceptual demands, skills and knowledge (often packaged as coaching theories in the sport coaching field) required to meet these challenges. Exemplifying quality in such approaches, Ward et al. (33) drew on Woods (62) work, to suggest a combination of four methodological approaches; 1.

Research should be contextually situated using individuals who represent the population and context under consideration (63, 64) e.g., using an Under-10's academy coach to understand skilful coaching within the foundation phase.

Within this paper we have discussed a lack of empirical research designed to explore the capacities of expertise and how they are realised in practice. Drawing on other domains, it is clear that skilful practice and expertise, is underpinned by the capacity to adapt skillfully to the requirements of the task at hand. Therefore, by adapting Hoffman's (46) capacities of experts, we have developed an evidence informed criteria, designed to identify skilful coaches by privileging the views and beliefs of the wider coaching workforce across Premier League Academies. Finally, drawing together the aforementioned methodological insights, alongside previous conceptual work in sport coaching, and recommendations from broader expertise literature, we conclude this paper by proposing an evidence informed agenda aimed at uncovering the hallmarks of the most adept coaches in Premier League Academies (see Table 4). This plan represents a broader ongoing research plan for the Premier League to drive the progress of research informed practice to understand skilful coaching and adaptive expertise, in turn shaping a coach development agenda focused on developing adaptive and skilful coaches throughout academies (33). Ultimately, the aim being for the Premier League to develop the most skilful coaching workforce in the world.